Re: IPv6 Advertisements

["William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton () ryouko imsb nrc ca>]

On Tue, 29 May 2007, David Conrad wrote:

> Should've clarified: this was in the context of IPv4...
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure what the appropriate equivalent would be in IPv6 
> (/128 or /64?  Arguments can be made for both I suppose).

There have been discussions of this sort made over the years.  A good 
place to start would be the old (well, maybe not that old) 6Net site where 
there's a list of publications called 'Deliverables'.  The info is buried 
in other, but amongst other things it contains deployment scenarios as 
well as cookbooks decumenting IPv6 deigns and roll-outs, and what they 
learned from it all.  Lot's to read, but good info nonetheless:

        http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/

> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On May 29, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > > > vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something about him
> > > > being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
> > > > everywhere.
> > > Whether it's a /24 for f-root or a /20 doesn't really make a difference- 
> > > it's a routing table entry either way- and why waste addresses.
> >
> > I once suggested that due to the odd nature of the root name server 
> > addresses in the DNS protocol (namely, that they must be hardwired into 
> > every caching resolver out there and thus, are somewhat difficult to 
> > change), the IETF/IAB should designate a bunch of /32s as "root server 
> > addresses" as DNS protocol parameters.  ISPs could then explicitly permit 
> > those /32s.
> >
> > However, the folks I mentioned this to (some root server operators) felt 
> > this would be inappropriate.
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc


wfms